I come across lately to a phenomenon that is really disturbing.
Quite a few signals, some of them in the top 10 of signal provider's list have a really long history of some months or 1-2 years in some cases, but their drawdown value is low, only because they've just been connected very recently to MQL5 database.
That way the potential signal subscribers, see a nice long history of profitable months and a very low (single digit in many cases) DD figure, which is not true, because the MQL5 database can only detect the real DD value of the period that the signal was connected to it.
Is this ethical?
Is it not a trick (by signal providers) to mislead people to think that the particular signal is safe, since it has very low DD and nice healthy monthly profits?
Should MQL5 provide a warning of some kind next to the DD value, to say that this DD value its not the real value that reflects all account history? (similar to the warning for cent accounts)
Should MQL5 stop these signals, because they are misleading potential subscribers?
No, its not actually.
I am really annoyed by the fact that some signal providers are misleading people to believe that they are safe when they are not.
How could I adress this serious problem (because a lot of people loose money over it) without you to think that I advertise something?
How do you know they are misleading people ? Maybe the draw down was always low.
It's just suspicious to see a signal providers criticising other providers, nothing personal.
Do you think that is possible to have 9% DD for over 2 years with 15-25% average monthly profit?
Because I don't think it is.
Also, most of these accounts in a month or two, they get a 40-50% DD and often destroyed, so yes they are misleading people.
PS. I am not saying that this is always the case. It is possible of course for some trading genious to achieve these figures, but I haven't come across of one yet.
No they are not. It's not fair to talk in general, it's not fair to accuse someone without any clues. Most signals are just BS, that doesn't mean the providers are all misleading people, actually they are most probably misleading them self.
Anyway what's the point to discuss here ? Write to Metaquotes.